Transcript Type of Practice Teaching Practices Chickering & Gamson Principle

Web Conferencing in Higher
Education
Amy Ricci, WPI
Web Conferencing Industry
• Grew out of web-based chat and IM
software
• NetMeeting introduced in late 1990s
• Initially focused on corporate market –
many products still serve only corporations
• A few vendors are starting to address the
needs of the educational market
What is Web Conferencing?
• Communication and collaboration for remote
attendees
• Combines visual and audio interaction
• Two-way interaction
• Types of events
–
–
–
–
–
Virtual meetings
Virtual classes
Web seminars/webinars
Webcasts
On-demand recordings
Web Conferencing Features
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Slide presentations
Multimedia playback
Document/file sharing
Application sharing
Shared whiteboards with annotation
Public and private text chat
Polls and surveys
Quizzes
Breakout rooms
Emoticons
Additional Features
•
•
•
•
•
Recording and playback
Event management
User management
Content management
Reporting and tracking
Web Conferencing in
Higher Education
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Distance Learning
Project-based work
Office hours and help sessions
Faculty and staff collaboration with colleagues
Access to off-campus experts
Connecting students with employers
Marketing and admissions
Student advising
Fundraising
Interviewing job applicants
Helpdesk support
Chickering & Gamson
Principle
Teaching Practices
Type of Practice
Student-faculty Contact
Use of polling tools
Tool-specific
Requiring student participation
Pedagogical
Group work
Pedagogical
Text chat
Tool-specific
Asking questions
Pedagogical
Application sharing
Tool-specific
Use of polling tools
Tool-specific
Text chat
Tool-specific
Use of polling tools
Tool-specific
Stick to prepared schedule
Pedagogical
Time all lectures/events
Pedagogical
Communicate high
expectations
Encourage student participation
Pedagogical
Accommodate diverse
learning styles
Use of voice, text, and chat tools
Tool-specific
Use of application sharing
Tool-specific
Student-student cooperation
Active learning
Prompt feedback
Time on task
Shi, S. & B. Morrow. (2006). E-Conferencing for Instruction: What Works? Educause Quarterly, 29 (4),
p. 42-49. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0646.pdf
Web Conferencing in
Higher Education
• 45% of colleges have either video or web
conferencing
• 30% of those allow access on and off
campus
University Business, April 2006
Pros & Cons of Web
Conferencing
• Pros
– Real-time
communication
– Access to remote
individuals
– Dynamic presentations
– Interactivity
– Uses relatively simple
and common
technology
• Cons
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Bandwidth & compatibility
Time zone differences
Support issues
Attendee set-up can be
cumbersome
Audio quality
Accessibility issues
Administration issues
Lack of higher ed case
studies
Questions to Ask Internally
• What needs to be accomplished with the tool?
• How many people will be connecting at one time?
• What types of computers, operating systems, browsers,
and Internet connections do your end users have?
• Do you want to install on your own server or have the
vendor host it for you?
• How will it be administered?
• What kind of support will you need? Are you prepared to
provide it or can the vendor provide it?
Looking at Vendors
• Request a real-time demonstration
• Request a temporary account
• Does the vendor listen to your needs and take
action to address them?
• Is the vendor knowledgeable about the higher
education market and other vendors in the
market?
• What support is available and what is the
response time?
• Does the vendor have educational references?
Pricing
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hosted vs. local installation
Pay-per-use vs. pay-per-user
Concurrent users vs. unlimited users
Contract duration
Set-up fees
Maintenance fees
Overage charges
Vendors in Higher Education
Market
•
•
•
•
Centra
Elluminate Live!
Horizon Wimba
Interwise ECP Connect
Contact Information
Amy Ricci
[email protected]
508-831-6149